← Murder Sheet
Murder Sheet
The Murder of Scott Macklem: The Guilt of Temujin Kensu: A Conversation With Brett from the Prosecutors and Julia Cowley from the Consult: Part Two
01:29:55
Loading summary
Transcript160 lines
- [00:00]
A
So you're running out of closet space.
- [00:02]
B
The good news? You don't need to stop shopping. You just need to start selling with the RealReal.
- [00:08]
A
The RealReal is the world's largest and most trusted resource for authenticated luxury resale.
- [00:13]
B
Whether it's that mini bag that can't even fit your phone or those boots you never fully broke in, the RealReal handles everything from photography and copywriting to shipping and pricing.
- [00:23]
A
So you can just sit back, get
- [00:24]
B
paid, and make room for things that
- [00:26]
A
actually feel like you.
- [00:28]
B
And with 10,000 new arrivals every single day from top designers like prior Prada, Celine, Louis Vuitton and Loewe, all for up to 90% off retail, you're bound to find something perfectly on brand to
- [00:39]
A
fill that extra closet space with.
- [00:41]
B
Plus, right now you can get an
- [00:43]
A
extra $100 to shop when you sell
- [00:45]
B
for the first time. Make room for what feels like you go to therealreal.com to start selling and get your extra $100 to keep shopping@therealreal.com that's therealreal.com terms apply when you manage
- [01:00]
A
procurement for multiple facilities.
- [01:02]
B
Every order matters, but when it's for
- [01:04]
A
a hospital system, they matter even more.
- [01:06]
B
Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products
- [01:15]
A
in fast, dependable delivery so you can
- [01:17]
B
keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly.
- [01:20]
A
Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger.com or just stop
- [01:24]
B
by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [01:29]
A
I'm Anya, and in this episode we're going to be continuing our conversation with Brett and Julia about the murder of Scott Macklem. Content Warning this episode contains discussion of murder, sexual abuse and rape.
- [01:41]
C
Julia Cowley from the consult and Brett from the prosecutors were kind enough to agree to talk with us about their views of the Temujin Kinzu case. Our conversation was long enough to extend into a second episode, and the case is so complicated we could have easily gone into many more episodes.
- [02:00]
A
Before we resume our talk, I wanted to mention something that will become relevant at the end of the episode. This was a zoom call, and on the shelf behind Kevin and myself, I had earlier placed a couple of pennants celebrating Indiana winning the national championship in college football. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist and I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney and this is the Murder Sheet.
- [02:21]
C
We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder sheet.
- [02:30]
A
And this is the murder of Scott, the guilt of Temujin Kenzu. A conversation with Brett from the prosecutors and Julia from the consult part. Sam, You know, I, I, so I, so that's the alibi witnesses. Those are the defense witnesses. Obviously, the alibi is a huge part of this story. The other thing or on the other side, we talked about maybe battle of the witnesses here, the other opposing army or maybe group of witnesses.
- [03:41]
C
Now you're quoting Bob Roth. Oh, no, the truth army.
- [03:44]
A
What's happening? Emergency Dynasty. So the, the other group on the other side are of course, the parking lot witnesses. And, and these are folks who like the alibi witnesses. Some believe them, some don't. So I guess what are, what do
- [04:02]
C
you guys think of the parking lot witness?
- [04:03]
A
Good and bad parking lot witnesses. What are your thoughts on those?
- [04:07]
B
I mean, I think generally they got the story right that they heard a shotgun blast and a car driving off. Other than that, I give absolutely, maybe a percent weight. I give really very little weight to the eyewitnesses. It is so troubling to me how bad this was handled. And I can't give any weight to the eyewitnesses at all. Now, you know, in evaluating that, I was trying to think, and I'd be interested to hear what you all think. Did I think that the witness that was seen in the bushes and in the park in another parking lot at 8am is the same person that was seen in the car driving away? We didn't really talk so much about it on the show, but I was like, is that even the same person? Can we really say that? Now I've come to the conclusion maybe you have a similar jacket and you have a hat. But other than that, I'm like, I don't know that we could even say that was the same person. That's how little I trust. The conditions are so bad, I mean, eyewitness testimony is so bad to begin with, that even under ideal conditions. And here you have just, you have this very brief observation. In one case, few seconds, you have another one who's looking at the individual from 100ft away. And you can absolutely not get any fine facial details from that kind of observation. General details, possibly. He certainly had an opinion about how the person was acting, which was very suspicious to him. I think that's all probably valid, but, you know, he was trying to. The offender. If we, you know, I guess we have to also say, do we think the person in the car was the offender? And was this person in the parking lot the Offender. I think that's the assumption that's made by investigators. Can we say that with 100%? I don't think we can, but I. I'm going to go with it because I think it is very likely the offender. But like I said, we can't say it with 100% certainty. But you have this person driving away, observed briefly for just a passing few seconds. He's trying to obscure his identity. He is not familiar to the person observing him, and the identification of him is flawed. And we can talk about the photo array, the hypnosis. So I just give no weight to either of them, I think, and I understand why the jury. And again, we can talk about hypnosis and we can talk about confidence in testimony because when a witness is very confident, they're more believable, even if the evidence is terrible. So it's like. So I think the jury really believe the eyewitnesses. When the actual. When you really look at it, it's. To me, it is awful. It's just awful. Anyway, I've said my piece.
- [07:22]
D
Yeah, I mean, I would probably give them more. More weight than Julia just because, you know, as a prosecutor, I like to have. It's always nice to have an eyewitness who can say they saw somebody because it doesn't matter. You can read every scientific study you want to on eyewitnesses. If somebody says they. In trial, they point to the guy and they say, that's the guy I saw. That's going to be really powerful for a jury. The. The two issues, I think. And you guys are gonna have to help me a little bit on the details. So the photo. I remember the photo array was problematic. I mean, I've seen a lot of photo arrays and I thought it was very suggestive of who you were supposed to pick. I know there's at least one witness who maybe identified Temujin at one point, but then they had some sort of live lineup and he didn't pick him. I don't remember which one that one is. I don't remember if that's the photo array guy or the hypnosis guy or somebody else. The hypnosis thing. And I would love if you have some insight on this because I know the prosecutor. My recollection is the prosecutor was very angry when he found out that they had done the hypnosis. I don't really understand why they did the hypnosis. Hypnosis. It makes me angry just because if they hadn't done the hypnosis and the guy gets Because I know he made a statement. I think he might have even identified Temujin. Then he does the hypnosis. After he does the hypnosis. Well, then he's 100% sure, as Julia said, I'm sure he got up on that stand and he was the surest of any eyewitness who'd ever existed that he absolutely saw Temen because he had been hypnotized. I don't know why they did the hypnosis. I wish they hadn't done the hypnosis. If he could have given as powerful testimony without the hypnosis, then I think that witness would be much stronger. I think the problem with the lineup, and we talk about this sometimes in various, like, trainings and stuff, where we talk about lineups is once you pick someone out of a lineup from that point forward, you're really remembering the person from the lineup more so than the person you saw at the crime scene. So if you can get somebody to pick somebody out of a lineup, they're going to identify them at trial because they're going to look in trial, they're going to see the guy and they're going to say, that's the guy that's on the lineup. That's him. Right. So you have to be really careful with lineups. They need to be really well done. And I'll just also note my recollection of the lineup. Temujin looks like a lot of people from that time period. So, you know, I don't know that he was so distinctive that you would necessarily be able to positively identify him if you had never seen him before. So those are some of the problems I had with those witnesses.
- [09:59]
B
And I think I can answer your question about how the hypnosis happened. And maybe Kevin and Anya have even more information if they recall from the files, because I think they've read them closer to this recording than I have. But my understanding was that so. And here's another problem I have with the one eyewitness that saw the person driving away in the car, is that he was so eager to help. He suggested to one of the officers, I think it was Carmody, that he should be hypnotized. Maybe he could be hypnotized. And Carmody said, wait to talk to the detectives. Don't do it. Well, he goes and does it that day anyway, prior to being shown a lineup, I believe. I think that's true. He was shown a photo array. So he gets hypnotized after he's given a brief description to maybe A responding officer, he's given a statement, he goes and he gets hypnotized. And then two days later he gives a much more detailed statement which includes additional details. And there are some of them that I don't want to say conflict, but they're a little bit different than the original statement that he made. So that's how the. And that's another thing. I had so much issue with him wanting to help so bad that he disregarded what the police officer. And it really hurt. I mean, it doesn't. And then he testifies extremely confident. That's one of the things that's the problem with hypnosis is it can make you more confident in what you think you remembered. And when you testify and you're very confident, then the jury will believe you. And the jury really believed him. They thought he was a very good witness and they believed him. So the whole. And then the hypnosis itself was so suggestive that he didn't even bring up that the offender had facial hair, that it was the person doing the hypnosis brings up, oh, he had a beard. And he never said he had a beard. It was just so suggestive that I found it completely unreliable. And by that point, you can't trust any of his memories or what he saw. And I agree too, that Temujin looked very similar to a lot of people during that time. In fact, he looked a lot like Scott. There's some similarities. Yeah,
- [12:33]
C
well, it's certainly true that he got hypnotized without the intervention of police. In fact, the police officer, as you correctly noted, said, don't do it. It's not my recollection that there was much different in between his initial statements describing who he saw to the officer and what he later testified to in court. I do know there was. Prior to the trial, that issue was brought up and discussed extensively, as you can imagine, because any defense attorney worth his salt would want to. The law in Michigan, at least at that time, was post hypnosis. Post hypnosis testimony is not allowed in unless you can show. Unless you meet the burden of showing that you are testifying based on your pre hypnotic knowledge. There's not new stuff coming in. And they brought in the police officer that he talked to and they talked about what he said. This is what he said. This is what I wrote down in my report. Even prior to knowing that he was hypnotized. And there were, as you say, a couple of details that were different. I think one of them was that he had after the hypnosis he'd said his hand, the driver's hand was in a different place, things like that. But after the officer's testimony as to what Mr. Godian told him prior to the hypnosis, the judge felt that there was a sufficient basis to believe that he was testifying from his pre hypnotic knowledge.
- [14:17]
B
I think there were some additional things that were testified to. The facial hair was not. It was not something he initially told investigators. That came after the hypnosis. And that was, at least it was in the preliminary hearing. I can't remember the actual trial testimony. It was in the preliminary hearing. Preliminary hearing. And then the difference in the vehicle was different. I mean, it was during the hypnosis session. He, you know, the witness is saying, well, I think it was a foreign make. And he's like, was it a Ford? Was it a Chevy? You know, like bringing up all of these American cars. And he's like, well, I think it was foreign. He's like, well, was it a Honda? You know, very suggestive. And he finally. I don't know how, because I don't see it in the transcript, but I don't know how. Two days later, after being hypnotized, he. He ends up saying it's a Ford Escort. Because that's not what came out in the hypnosis and it's not anything he said in the initial interview. I thought there were discrepancies, and I do know that it was argued and that was the ruling that that would be allowed, but I don't think that there is any reliable way to separate out pre hypnosis memory. Once it's contaminated, there's just no reliable way. And so I found it all very problematic, his eagerness, the lack. I mean, the fact that eyewitness testimony, just eyewitness witnesses in general are just so, so unreliable that like I said, I just can't give it any weight whatsoever. And because hip hop hypnosis really makes a witness much more confident, I think he came right away with being very confident. I think he remains confident to this very day. And I just find that troubling, you know, just based on my experience and my. The research. When it comes to hypnosis, one of
- [16:21]
A
the best and scariest parts of running your own business is you have to be everything all at once. It's always interesting, but we've gotta be your charming hosts, dogged reporters, savvy producers, engaging script writers, diligent marketers, et cetera, all the time, all at once. All the while lavishing attention on our pup, Nick and teasing each other incessantly. It's fun, but it's a lot.
- [16:43]
C
Fortunately for all small and upcoming business owners, there's Shopify.
- [16:49]
A
They can help you wear all the hats at once. They're there to take stuff off your plate so you can drill down and focus on what moves you, what drives you forward, what you're really good at. I really wish we'd been working with Shopify when we first started. They're a game changer, a one stop commerce platform that lets you do so much fast and conveniently.
- [17:07]
C
There's a reason 10% of all E commerce in the United States alone uses Shopify as well as millions of businesses around the world. It works. It powers your business forward.
- [17:20]
A
One thing that would have really helped us early on is their design studios for beautiful online stores that fit your brand's personality to the T. You don't
- [17:29]
C
need to bounce from website to website. You can tackle the important tasks like inventory management, marketing and returns all in one spot so you're seeing the big picture for your business.
- [17:40]
A
Start your business today with the industry's best business partner, Shopify, and start hearing. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.commsheet Go to shopify.commsheet that's shopify.commsheet
- [17:59]
C
Save money, look better. Shop our sponsor quints today and refresh your wardrobe with some new styles for spring.
- [18:06]
A
Quint is our favorite clothing brand. They are all about getting you luxury styles at affordable prices. No markups, no middlemen, just high value, high quality fashion pieces that will transform your look.
- [18:19]
C
They've got everything organic cotton and Mongolian cashmere sweaters, breathable linen, soft Pima cotton that looks great and doesn't pill, washable silk pieces. I mean Quince is a go to for me at this point. I love their work shirts and sweaters and I can't wait to try out some of their new pieces for spring.
- [18:38]
A
Same here. I'm really looking to try out their linen pieces as the temperatures turn warmer, but since it's still pretty chilly out, I'm relying on my Quince Mongolian Cashmere sweaters to weather the changing seasons. I'm regularly wearing all of them and they've held up so great despite my constant use. These things are great.
- [18:55]
C
A wardrobe refresh does not need to break your budget. All you need is a few quality pieces that pair well and hold up pieces that don't go out of style. Quint's has got you there. Check out their website today because Murder Sheet listeners will get a great deal right now.
- [19:11]
A
Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. That's a full year to build your wardrobe and love it and you will now available in Canada too. Don't keep settling for clothes that don't last. Go to Q U I n c e.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet welcome to big savings this
- [19:36]
B
week at Grocery Outlet, your extreme value headquarters right now. Sanderson Farms boneless skinless chicken breasts are only 1.99 per pound. And get one dozen large cage free eggs for only 99 cents. However you cook them up, you're saving big on fresh quality. Stock up on these family favorites today. These deals are only available until March 17 while supplies last selection varies by store. See weekly ad or in store for grade and size details. Grocery Outlet Bargain market
- [20:05]
D
I'll make yeah, three quick points and a question. Feel like you guys are educating me as we go along about the case. One thing I think is really important to note because sometimes I think this gets misreported. This is not a situation where the eyewitness said I don't remember anything. And then they went into hypnosis and they did the hypnosis and all of a sudden he remembers the full story. Right? That didn't happen. He does give a statement beforehand before the hypnosis happens and I think that's important to note. I think one question that I don't remember the answer to is is I assume the defense attorney was allowed to go into the hypnosis at cross examination even though it came in. Was he allowed to cross examine on the hypnosis?
- [20:50]
C
I don't recall.
- [20:51]
D
I don't remember off the top of my head.
- [20:52]
B
I don't think so. What I recall and I just, I could be wrong. But what I recall is that there was an argument about whether it was going to come in. They did interview like the police officer detective about it and the judge ruled it could come in but I don't know that it was brought up at the trial itself about you know, I think that was argued at the preliminary
- [21:14]
D
hearing and I mean, you know that's I would love I actually don't have the trial transcripts anymore. I don't know what happened to them but I lost them. So I'd kind of like to look at that again because I'd be curious and sometimes that's the case where there's a legal question about admissibility if it's admissible, I mean, you can imagine like you file a motion to suppress because you say the officer beat the crap out of you and the judge says, no, the evidence is coming in, motion suppressed, denied. You can't then argue in front of the jury. Well, you know, this really shouldn't have come in because the officer beat the crap out of him. It's like, no, the judge already made that call. But other times, even if, like, imagine like a coerced confession. Well, I'm not going to say the confession was not or was coerced. Well, yeah, y' all probably saw this some in the Richard Allen case, right? Like, there's the legal argument to keep it out, but then there's the argument, well, even if it comes in, we should still be able to cross examine on how it came in or how it came out. Right? So I just don't know what the, what the answer to that is. I hope that they were able to cross examine just because I hope the jury heard that. And that'll bring in my last point because it's something you guys have said that is really true, which is juries are looking for confidence. You know, they. They really are trying to decide who do I believe or not believe. And I think one thing about the hypnosis, even if it didn't affect his memory at all, I think it probably did make him more confident, like Julia was saying. And I think he probably did come across much more confident and unshakable than maybe Temu's alibi witnesses. So when you're the jury, you know, why is it they chose to believe one witness over another? It could be because that witness just seemed like, man, that guy, he absolutely knows what he saw. And they may not have known about the hypnosis, though. I'm not sure whether they did.
- [22:51]
A
I will counter that a little bit, just a little bit of pushback. I, Kathleen Dyer was certain on the stand. I just think some of the preliminary questions kind of poking at that may have not worked in her favor, like the level of certainty, but then kind of some of the other things she said, perhaps. So I think Manali and Dyer projected some confidence. Certainly Sherman did, but certainly. No, that's a good point. I think juries do like the confidence. And as we've seen with sometimes expert witnesses, that can be a problem, because the guy who comes out and tells you about some junk science, you know, yeah, it's great. You know, they're going to be the hero, whereas the person who's like, okay, scientifically you know, they're going to be, you know, it's a problem. So I think it's a really good point that you guys are raising. Everyone was very confident and wanting to help here. I think that's a big lesson for all of us.
- [23:44]
B
I mean, that calls incredibility too, when you have people who are so eager to help. And I want to go back to the other eyewitness, Kruger, who saw him at 8am or a little after 8am so when he was interviewed, and I'm getting this from the report, he gave a description, not any fine details of the face, but just what he was wearing, a green jacket and a hat. And at that point he is shown the photo array, you know, without having provided a description. At least it's not in the report, which you would think. He provided this and then he was shown. I mean, you're supposed to document everything. So it reads as if. Which I find also very troubling and very suggestive, as if he didn't provide any kind of details about who he saw, what the find, facial details, which I think based on the distance he claimed he was from the person, he would not even be able to provide other than maybe a white guy. And then he gets shown this very suggestive photo array. And I think any investigator, any detective is going to look at that photo array and see a whole host of problems with it and how it was administered. And so again, I find his testimony unreliable. I don't think either one of them are lying. I just think that the process and the weakness of the evidence generally makes it so. I cannot consider that evidence.
- [25:24]
D
Can I ask about the.
- [25:24]
B
Very much,
- [25:27]
D
and I apologize for my ignorance, your listeners, probably why you got this gowny.
- [25:30]
A
And
- [25:33]
D
were they able to cross examine on the photo array? Were they able to say, like, is this the photo array you were shown? Like, look at, you know, there's only one guy facing this way and it's Imogen or whatever. Were they able to do that? Did they have the photo array to cross examine with or was that something they were not able to use?
- [25:50]
C
The photo arrays that were shown in court during the trial were not the actual photos used in the photo array because those photos, like had like police department information indicating these. These were like definite mug shots and things of that nature. And so they chose to strip some of that from what was shown to the jury. And so they were just basically shown, I think, the head and the shoulders of these people.
- [26:19]
B
I don't recall any cross examination on the photos array or photo array or not cross examination, but you know, questioning about the way these were compiled and put together and the suggestiveness of them and the approach appropriateness of how they were put together and how they were shown. I don't know that that was done. I just can't remember. Like I said, it's been a while since I read all of that. Maybe Kevin and Anya remember if they were questioned. But you're right, Kevin, the same photo arrays that were shown to the witnesses are not what were presented in court.
- [26:58]
C
And in fairness, the issue about the photo array allegedly being suggestive, that was not even raised by the defense until I think the last 10 or 15 years. And that was litigated in a hearing or the lasted a couple of days, I think maybe in 2010, 2014, and the Michigan courts ended up coming down that they felt there was nothing suggestive about the photo array and that they felt that some of the claims Ken Zoo's attorneys were making about it were inaccurate. The appellate, the Kinzu's attorneys at that point were saying like, oh, we didn't even get to look at the actual photo array until 20 some years after the trial. And they were making all these extravagant claims about it.
- [27:50]
B
All I can say is from my experience that photo array would not fly. That is not how you put them together. That so I, you know, I can't disagree. The courts made their decision. But like I said, that would not be appropriate for the work that I did.
- [28:08]
D
Let me just say as a legal matter, I don't think the photo array is enough to overturn the conviction either. Right. Like if, if you came in and you said look at this photo, Ray, it's so terrible. We have to overturn the conviction, you know. No, it's not. I mean really, I can't. It would have to, I mean there'd have to be like an arrow pointing at him saying pick this guy for it for photo ready to be so bad that you'd overturn the conviction. Because you're going to compare that against the other evidence and you're right, you're jogging my memory. I feel like they, they claimed like the photos got lost or something. Right. And they didn't find them for another 20 years. And that's why they were able to bring. Because otherwise they would be banned. They'll be time barred. Right. Like you can't, 20 years later you can't challenge the. So my presumption is they claimed it was newly discovered evidence. Look how bad this photo array is. They file a habeas corpus motion they're arguing it's so terrible at tainting the jury. We could overturn the conviction, and that's just not. That's not going to cut it. So I don't disagree with the court at all on that. But if I am, you know, in hindsight, from the position of where we're sitting now, looking at the testimony, it certainly bothers me that the photo array was used in the way that it was.
- [29:19]
A
I might just be dumb, but when Kevin first showed me this thing and said, what do you notice? I didn't. I didn't see. And you guys are the experts. You guys have, you know, been in prosecution, in law enforcement, to a layperson maybe. Again, Kevin's always doing tricks on me. I'm probably just having things go over my head, but I didn't necessarily see it and be like, oh, my God, I'm gonna pick this guy. Like, I just was kind of like, it's a. It's a bunch of dudes with mustaches. What am I. Like, what am I even seeing right now? I remember this is. You did this to me, like, was this, like, when you first started looking into it? And I was just like, what the fuck is this? But, you know, it. It. That was just me. I definitely can understand where people are uncomfortable with it. What we look at, too, is, though, there's that level of. And this kind of goes towards. I think what. I'm so glad we're having this conversation, because there's stuff that goes to innocence or guilt, right? The stuff that's factually about the case. And then there are things about. We've covered cases where we think someone is absolutely, factually guilty and did not get a fair trial. And, you know, you have to come out. In our view, you have to come out on the side of. Overturn the conviction and do a new trial, because that's how our system works. And we've. We've said that it's not a fun place to be. No one likes that. No one's happy about it. But I think it's, you know, it's. We've actually said that in a couple cases that we've covered, and you do have to kind of raise issues that are around what's fair to a defendant. Brett, did you want to say something?
- [30:44]
D
I was just gonna say, you know, it's. It's. It is. You're right. I mean, these things just strike people different ways. And everybody's listening. Can just go look at the photo lineup. And I'm just curious what people generally do think. I mean, and it's also like, I'm looking at it right now. I have no idea if this is what it actually looked like back then or not. You know, I mean, so even this might be misleading. I think it's funny that Timothy's the only one looking to the. To the left, everybody else looking to the right. You know, it just the kind of things that draw your attention or whatever, but people should check that out. But I do want to. I want to echo what you were saying there. And I don't think, like, there are things in the trial that could have gone either way. Right. Like, I don't think this is an unfair conviction in the way sometimes people present it. I don't think his attorney was ineffective. You know, I. I know he had a lot of issues and he might have been ineffective in other cases, but I don't think he was ineffective in this. Were there things that I would have done if I'd have been him? Yeah, that's not the standard. Right. I mean, that's the first thing. You know, it's not that the judge should have thrown out the conviction because there wasn't enough evidence. I mean, frankly, this is a case where the fact finder is going to have to make credibility determinations among witnesses. And they did that and they found that, you know, Temujin was guilty. So, you know, the, the 404B, 403 issues for your listeners. The is something more prejudicial than probative with Crystal's testimony. It's a tough call, but that's where the judge. That's what judges do. They make tough calls. And a lot of that came in and you could argue maybe it shouldn't have or maybe should have, but I don't think that was like an incorrect ruling. So this is a case where I feel like some people want to act like this huge injustice was done vis a vis the procedures of the case and due process. I don't really see that.
- [32:44]
C
I'm curious, what did the two of you make about Kinzu smuggling a razor into his cell and like shaving and altering his appearance prior to the lineups?
- [33:03]
B
The ones that were done in January
- [33:05]
C
of that next year, I believe these were done in. In November or December, not long after his arrest. There was testimony that before lineups were being done, he smuggled in a razor to shave to change his appearance so he would not look as he did on the day of the murder, which is certainly incriminating behavior.
- [33:32]
B
I mean, it can be considered post defense behavior. It's certainly to be considered consciousness of guilt. Possibly. It could be. Well, I know they're saying the guy had a beard and a mustache, so. And I happen to have one, so I'm going to shave it off because I'm going to manipulate things because that's what I do. There's a lot of ways to look at it. I think when I look at that as evidence of guilt, I just don't give it a ton of weight. But it's something that needs to be considered.
- [34:09]
D
Yeah. I mean, I feel like, as I've said before, I think Temujin is his worst enemy in a lot of ways. I think Temujin was absolutely doing things to try and manipulate the process. I just, I don't. I think that's beyond Cavale, as we like to say, and in the law, that he was trying to do that and. Yeah, I mean, is that something that can lead you to think he's guilty? Sure. I think it has other possible explanations as well. And I tend to sort of revolve back to these core issues we've talked about more so than some of the those type of things. I think one thing that's really interesting about this case, and we've talked about this a lot, is there's so much of his behavior. And this is. This is. This is why people are fascinating. Why people, good people of good faith can look at a case, see the same facts and come a different way. A lot of his behavior, I think when I look at it and when Julia looks at it, we're like, man, this guy is like, there's no way he could have pulled this off. He's such a. He's such an idiot. He's such a psychopath. He's such a, you know, manipulator. He's so bombastic. He's so, like, uncontrolled. He's so undisciplined. And it makes us think, so he probably didn't do it. And then a lot of people, and I think all of those are reasons that y' all think. No, I mean, these are reasons to believe he did do it. And I think when you see that, how you judge that then goes to effect which witnesses you. You put more credibility in. Right? Like, do you put more credibility in the eyewitnesses or more in the alibi witnesses? It's, to me, the most fascinating thing about this case are that there are these aspects that two different people can look at it. And it really. It's not just that they see it differently. It Totally drives them in different directions. And I think that's fascinating.
- [35:50]
A
I think for. For us, there's just this element of, like, there's so many. You know, I think a lot of this stuff I could almost wave away as, like, this guy's a doofus if he's doing it once or twice when it's constantly happening. At some point, to me, it just starts to cross over into. This is a campaign of trying to, you know, get away with something. But I think for me, though, I'll just say we don't think he got away with it. You know, we think they got him. And. And I think that speaks to him, thinking he's smarter than he is. Uh, Kevin often says he's not a bright man. I tend to agree with that. I do think he has a level of cunning and ability to plan, though. I don't think it's totally fair to say that he's just doing stuff and just totally ruled by his emotions. I think he's a textbook abuser, and violence and coercion are a language for him how he deals with other people. And so I feel like, you know, it just. But with some of this stuff I do for us, I guess it just kind of. It adds up, the totality of it. Just like many cases we cover, for us, it's like any one of these things, I could say, hey, that doesn't make him guilty, right? But all these, you know, small rocks may add up to a much greater weight at the end of the day for us because they all come together and paint a really. It's like pointillism, right? You know that wonderful painting in the Chicago Institute? You look. Oh, all these lovely people. And you look closely. Oh, it's a dot. What the heck is this? And then you all get it together, and it's a wonderful Sondheim musical, and everyone has a good time, and, you know, it's that. And I think for us, it makes a picture. And the picture is of a violent, narcissistic guy who thinks and continues to think that he's God. And we could talk more about that later. And I think he doesn't think rules apply to him, and I think he just takes what he wants and is good at manipulating some people after the fact. But I appreciate this conversation because I feel like so often things just turn into it being just this overt wrongful conviction and what's going on. Michigan must be a failed state. And what we're talking about here is much more of, like, the nuances. And I feel like, that much more interesting, frankly, but also kind of gets to, like. It's not that kind of easy story, but people can still have different viewpoints.
- [38:07]
B
I agree. I agree with everything that you said. I don't have any disagreements. But I want to go back to what Brett was saying about, you know, you view it one way, and you may put weight more on evidence than you otherwise would in one category than another, because you're viewing it, oh, he's terrible. He's gotta be guilty or he's innocent. So you're. You're weighing the evidence under that mindset, which is exactly why we looked at the crime itself first and our impressions of that and our observations of that. And we saw, you know, something that, you know, was just very quick. There was no need for confrontation. There was no need for ambush. It was just quick. And, you know, the priority was to escape. And really, in my opinion, because looking at the eyewitnesses without a trace, and that is not how he's ever operated. He doesn't operate without a trace. Yes, he's cunning. Yes, he can plan things, but it's messy, it's noisy. And you have this case where you have kind of an ambush from behind. You don't have confrontation, you don't have intimidation. You don't have a verbal exchange. You have nothing that you see in every single thing that he does in his life. So we're looking at that, and that was our initial impression. This is somebody in and out and without a trace. And then we're looking at, okay, how do we generally. Not just in this case, how do we generally view alibi witnesses? How do we generally. And evaluate them? And how do we generally evaluate eyewitnesses and what are those conditions? And looking at those, and then you start to, you know, in our mind, okay, we're going to put more weight on this than this, because that's what we would do. That's our process. That's what we know. That's our experience. That's what the research tells us, that that's what's most probable. And then we go, okay, let's look at number one suspect here. And when we look at his behavior, we don't see what we see at the crime scene. And that doesn't mean we're 100% right. It doesn't mean that he didn't do it. It's just like to us, it's two different people, two different personalities. That's how we evaluated it.
- [40:30]
A
We, to be clear, also started with just the case. I think Often we've heard people be like, oh, you're just attacking him. It's like, certainly we've done a lot of reporting that's been unflattering and talked to a lot of people who he really deeply hurt. But we started with case file commutation hearing because we felt like that's, you know, ultimately the most important thing for. For talking about this. I guess I would. I would question thinking about him as someone who never leaves a trail or, you know, like, I mean, he was able to abuse a lot of women under a lot of people's noses for a very long time, managing all these different relationships. One thing I was always really interested to get your guys take on. And the one thing that kind of does stand out to us is, you know, oftentimes it's talked about like, how could anyone have stalked Scott and done all this? And we have an instant incident that's on the record, on the books, where Sima Jinkinzu, with assistance from accomplices, hunts down G. We call her G. She's his ex wife, One of his. One of his wives, his ex wife at the time. She hunts her down while she's in a vehicle with her then boyfriend is able to engineer a situation where, you know, she's pulled over and there's a confrontation. To me, when we look at the context of Ken Zoo's behavior, we're seeing things where he's employing surveillance, stalking, going in vehicles to where people are and treating women like they're his property. One big thing that's always been claimed is like, why would he freak out about, you know, him and Crystal breaking up? He doesn't care about Crystal. He's got all these ladies and. And it's like, that might be true with a normal guy. He's not normal. That's not how he views women. We know that he views. They're like, once you're in his, like, harem, you're stuck there and you know, you owe him something. And if you leave, if you reject him, if you make him feel small, that's a problem. And he will lash out in violence. So I guess I just feel like when we see the continuation of behavior and violence towards women, we're starting to see a pattern. We're starting to see the stalking, we're starting to see the violence. We're starting to see even, hey, I'm not even just gonna go after the woman I'm with. I'm gonna go after her new man. And I just feel like we can't. A profile's obviously very, very interesting and very important and good to do. It's just that to me, like, when we have this guy who we know is gunning for Scott and Crystal and then this happens in the context of his other behavior, I'd have an easier time dismissing some of it. If he was just like kind of a normal dude, or maybe he was kind of a hothead, you know, if, like, if girlfriends talked to us and said, yeah, you know, you know, he could rage a bit, but you know, generally he was. Whatever. It would be hard to believe anyone would do this. But when I see people being like, yes, like, I've had to go into hiding because he will find me and he's even been stalking me from behind bars, it just becomes a different thing. Thing.
- [43:33]
D
I will say this. I mean, just to reiterate what I was saying earlier, it's not. I don't think he's a good guy and I think he is a violent guy. And it's not so much that I think he's incapable sort of as a person. Like it's not in his constitution to do violence or whatever. The I. And I. And going back to what I said at the very beginning when I was talking about sort of my perspective on it, a lawyer and a prosecutor, at some point that stuff becomes like, you've convinced me, like you've. You've convinced me that he's not a very good person. Right. You've convinced me that he's violent towards women and he's controlling. So I'm. Now I'm. To that point, I have no doubt he's capable of doing great violence. And that's when I want to get into the. The specifics of the case. So it's not that I think this stuff's irrelevant. I don't even from an evidentiary perspective, though some of it probably wouldn't come into an actual trial. I do think it's relevant and it does inform the case. And I'll say this. You know, my perspective on this case really kind of started to change when Julia did it. When we did it, we didn't have the commutation stuff. We read the trial transcript and we had. And we read some of the appellate stuff and everything else. And, you know, I thought it was possible that Temujin had been a very violent person towards Crystal, but I wasn't sure. And it wasn't. I wasn't sure that, you know, everything she said on the. On the stand was true or whatever. When the consult did it, I was like, oh, wow. Okay, like, this guy's. This guy is truly just not a very. He's just not a good person.
- [45:13]
A
Right?
- [45:13]
D
I mean, he does horrible things. But I still felt like the evidence wasn't there. That opinion didn't change. Obviously, at the end of the day, they came out in a similar place. You guys have done a lot of great stuff on this as well. And it does not trouble me if people think he did this. I don't lose sleep over people thinking that Temujin Kinsey was guilty at all. I've had private conversations with people where we're like, if he's innocent, he shouldn't be in prison for a crime he didn't commit. But I don't really necessarily want him to get out. So it is complex in that way, and I admit that complexity, but once I get back to the case itself, that's where I don't necessarily see the evidence or conviction. If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Granger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [46:32]
B
I agree. And I think all of the behaviors are relevant. I think he was properly prioritized as a suspect. And none of that, you know, but when I start looking as well at behavior and that is not the be all, end all, I know that. But when I look at the behavioral congruence and then you combine that with what I, you know, the evaluation of the evidence, I don't think he did it. And I cannot get to that point even with all his bad behavior. And sometimes the behavior becomes over and over and over again. It becomes, this is not the guy that committed that crime. That is not. They are not congruent with each other in my experience. And I do not say that with 100% certainty.
- [47:33]
A
But.
- [47:33]
B
But would you put a percentage on it? I've been here before where there have been cases where it looks like somebody like, oh, this person's really bad, or there's just some piece of evidence. And, and. But then you look at the probabilities and the statistics and the behavior and then you realize, okay, I need to stick to my process because when I veer from that process, I end up being wrong. And that's what I'm looking at this case and it wasn't just me, it was four of us. We have over 100 years of experience and we all read it independently and came back and we came back to the conclusion and when we first did it, we did not have the commutation hearing at first. And we ended up doing all the recordings and then we got the commutation hearing and we did sort of like do a follow up, let's read the commutation hearing and come back to it and reading that even more, just convinced like his behavior is just not. If he were to murder and I think he is capable of that, this is not how it would look. How would it look? And I also think, I think it would look. I think you'd see escalation. I think you'd see intimidation. I think you'd see more injuries. I think you'd see, you know, he cannot do anything silently. He has to have recognition, he has to have people worship him. And when he doesn't get that, that makes him very mad. But that. So this crime, how would it look? It would look noisier. It would look. There would have been signs of escalation. There would be possible verbal exchanges, intimidation involved. Not just this in and out, quick shotgun blasts. And that's another thing. There's, there's no, you know, I think when the, the choice of the weapon is unusual, you know, percentage wise shotguns are, you know, lower percentage used in homicide cases. So why choose that? You're going to go and you're going to commit a really high risk crime in the middle of the day and you grab a shotgun which is noisy. That's a, you're going to draw attention to yourself. So it tells me that that person was very familia with shotguns. They were comfortable. It's not the first time that they've used that gun. That's another thing. It's really tough to put a gun, that gun with him. He had rifles, he had pistols. His friends that lived with him and knew him for most of his life said I never saw him with a shotgun. He said he fired a shotgun once when he was 13. But we cannot place a shotgun in his hands.
- [50:23]
A
I would push back on that because we do have testimony from Crystal saying that describing a shotgun in his hand. We have testimony, I believe from her sister describing an incident. And the story is that Temujin goes back inside to get a shotgun.
- [50:41]
C
And I believe there's also something in the police reports that indicates there was some sort of accident involving a Fence. And he came out and was threatening somebody with a shotgun.
- [50:52]
A
A woman we call Elle, who is one of the women he abused, and she lived with him in Ann Arbor for a brief period. She talks about a very bizarre incident.
- [51:00]
B
And this.
- [51:01]
A
It sounds bizarre, but I mean, I believe it. Knowing what we know where Temen has her feel a bag, a duffel bag. She can feel weapons inside. She's not able to like, pick out any specific ones, but she feels the barrel of a long gun. And then the other one that comes to mind is when we interviewed g. So we interviewed the ex wife of Simegen, she talked about an incident where he would train her to be a ninja. And remember, like, yes, he's normally very loud, but ninjas are quiet. Right. And that's what he aspired to be. I mean, that people make fun of that, but that's. I mean, that's real. I mean, that's something every woman we talk to. You know, he talked about the council, he talked about his ninja skills, and he's doing all of this. Martial arts was very important to him and he wanted to be a ninja. But she talked about he would train her by shooting a BB gun at her feet to make her like jump around while she's pregnant, I believe. Or he was doing a lot of crazy stuff while she was pregnant. I think he had more of an interesting guns than it's been said. I also noted that recently, I think he posted on one of his Facebooks complaining that, you know, he. Who knows what's going on in his marriage right now, but he warned his followers, don't buy any guns from Paula right now because those aren't hers to give away. So I think he's. I think he's a firearms guy, regardless of what he's claimed.
- [52:24]
B
No, I. I agree. I don't think he didn't have access to weapons and he. He admitted it. And I think when we look at the test, the trial testimony, it's vague. There's nobody who says he had a shotgun. I mean, Crystal describes a long gun. She never said it was a shotgun. And it could have been a rifle. She didn't know. And the person who felt the guns in the bag said it felt hard and long anyway, like a gun, but couldn't say with certainty. So I don't recall any trial testimony that it was just, in my opinion, vague that you could not put a shotgun in his hands. And then with his roommate and acquaintance that had known him his whole life, who they had a falling out. And he does not like Temujin and didn't like him at trial and wasn't trying to protect him. Said he never saw him with a shotgun. So I don't think there's evidence that we can put a shotgun in his hands. I'm not saying that it isn't out there somewhere that he could have gotten a hold of it, but where is it? What weapon did he use? He would have had. I feel that this offender would have practiced with that particular gun and people would know that he had that gun. And I don't think that the testimony was convincing to me because I just. It was too vague.
- [53:43]
A
Do you guys feel that Crystal perjured herself? Because that's one big thing in this case. I, I personally feel like you believe Crystal or you believe Temujin, but maybe there's different interpretations of that. Talk to me about where we're seeing kind of Crystal fit into this.
- [53:59]
B
So what I want to talk about Crystal because I think our coverage is misinterpreted about what we thought about Crystal. So in my experience, and I've interviewed a lot of sexual assault victims and, or people who have made allegations of sexual assault and it is very rare to lie about sexual assault. It's very small percentage. So your mindset when you're going to interview somebody is you believe them. And I had a colleague that had a saying, you believe them. And until it becomes unbelievable. Now, when you look at some of the stuff Crystal was saying, it was somewhat unbelievable. Some things that I think were actually impossible. So we had to evaluate that, you know, is he part of this organization? Is he bugging? Can he read minds? Those types of things. These are some of the things she was saying that he, you know, so is it. Is she making it up? Is he really telling her these things and she believes it or can he really do it? So first of all, he's not really doing these things. I didn't believe that he was part of an organization. I don't believe he can read minds. And I didn't think that he was planting listening devices. So then it comes down to, okay, is she making it up or is this what he's really telling her? And she's believing part of it, but also very frightened by it. And whether she fully believes it or not, it's definitely frightening to her. So where we ultimately ended up based on what we had access to, is that she was telling the truth. These are the things he was doing to her. So that was my evaluation of Crystal, but it was a process because just like the other Evidence that we had to evaluate. We had to evaluate her testimony. She was a big part of the case against him. So we ultimately concluded. I don't recall any parts where I thought she perjured herself. She told what at first blush seemed like an unbelievable story, and I think we had to question that, but ultimately came to the conclusion that that was her experience and it was truthful.
- [56:15]
C
I know Crystal is listening to this discussion, and I also know that she is convinced, as frankly I am, that Kinzu killed the father of her son. So I'm just curious, what would the two of you tell her to convince her otherwise or to raise a reasonable doubt?
- [56:42]
D
I mean, I wouldn't try and convince her otherwise. I mean, at the end of the day, I understand she experienced him firsthand, and I think it was an incredibly traumatic experience that she went through. And I think if he went through an experience like she probably went through in his hands, you would believe he's capable of anything, and you wouldn't have much doubt that he had done this. I think there's a reason that, I mean, I think she's the first person, I think basically right after this that happened, she was like, you should look at Tim Jenkinsu, Fred Freeman, at the time. So, yeah, I mean, I totally, I totally understand where she's coming from and all her experiences, and I don't, I don't think there's anything I would say to try and convince her otherwise.
- [57:23]
B
Similar. I, I don't want to talk her out of her feelings, her experience at all. And I understand why she believes that. I, I, and I understand why people think he's guilty. I don't have. I mean, there's, I mean, I also, I can ever say 100% because I'm like, if not him, then who? And that's where I struggle, because I don't think he did it. And then I wonder who did this to him. And that's where my struggle is. But I don't want to try to convince her because, first of all, I don't think it's possible. I understand why she feels the way she does.
- [58:08]
A
You know, I think Crystal, you know, for, for people who, you know, are looking at the transcript, I, I feel like she brings the motive to, to the prosecution's case. And I think, you know, there's been a lot of discussion of, like, is it too much character stuff against Temujin? Is it too much about that? And, and is that, is that, you know, too influential for the jury that has been adjudicated in the appellate system? So, I mean, the. The courts don't seem to think so, but a lot of stuff didn't come in right. I know there was the motion in lemonade to prevent the stuff from g. Coming in right where this is the ex wife who's. Who actually would have been able to corroborate a lot of what Crystal went through. I mean, some of what Crystal went through. It really does sound like something like wild like, whoa, listening devices, bugs. What is going on?
- [59:00]
B
Reading minds. Right, Right.
- [59:03]
A
Like you're like, what? But I mean, when I see it, when I saw, you know what I thought, like, and you guys might be familiar with this case, I thought of the case of Colleen Stan where she's abducted by this guy and he tells her, you can never run away from me or the. You know, the company will get you. And it's like this kind of like, I think a certain type of abuser. It's like this fantasy world that's meant to control the victim. And it's like, you know, they're all watching us. And you. I think one thing, when we talk to abuse survivors, you become. It's crazy making. It's crazy making because you're like, stuck in the situation and, you know, you're terrified of the person. You're terrified of what will happen if you leave. It's just meant to add to that fear, I think. But I think, yeah, for. For me, I. I found her credible. And even more so when we went out and kind of found some of these other women who went through the same thing. And what we heard was the same thing again. It's the council, the ninja, the martial arts, the listening devices, the somehow being able to, you know, repeat back conversations that you wouldn't have thought he overheard. Now, how he did that, I don't know. I mean, he was probably just like sneaking around, hiding. Let's just be honest. He's not, you know, like, it's. It's probably. It's probably just that. But, you know, I could see if you're being abused by that person and then he's pulling all that on you. It's terrifying. So it's like, I don't want to dismiss it. Um. But yeah, no, I mean, it was. It was startling how similar some of it was. And again, a lot of it didn't come into trial. The motion in limine with G. There were other, you know, other women who went through this, and it's only really come out in recently. Although I will note for anyone who's thinking, well, maybe some of those people are just coming forward to get attention. As Julia. Very duly noted. I. It's very rare to have lies about that. And I. I agree with that. I don't believe in. Just believe everyone about everything all the time. I don't think that's how our system should work. Sometimes people do lie, but when you have all these women who don't know each other, they're not friends. They're not, like, hanging out and they're all saying, oh, yeah, I remember the listening devices. Yeah, I remember the council. I was going to be hung by the council because I didn't do this and I didn't get enough money from this, you know, scam, charity and whatever it.
- [61:07]
C
I wanted to go back to something Julia said where she said, if not Kenzo, then who? I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we all agree this was a targeted killing. And we have a wealth of evidence that Mr. Kinzu was making threats to Scott. Mr. Kinzu was stalking Scott. I don't think that's in doubt. We have a witness who says, oh, I recognize him. He was in a store stalking him. I know his name. This was the guy that was stalking him, Mr. Macklemore, even while all this was going on, he, like, tracked all these cars are going by my house. He tracks down the residence where they're coming from, and it's a resident where Mr. Kinzu lives. So there's clear evidence that Mr. Kinzu is stalking him. And so if we want to believe that the crime is done by someone else, we have to imagine that there is someone else stalking him, even though there's no evidence of it. And that this person just happens to strongly resemble Mr. Kinzu and have the same kind of coat as Mr. Kinzu does, the green jacket. And there's never been any evidence of anyone else stalking him. Mr. Kinzu has repeatedly tried to suggest that Scott Macklem was involved in drugs, and that's been thoroughly investigated over the years. We've talked to people who knew Scott Macklemore, and I think at some point, when you make an allegation like that and there's no evidence whatsoever to support it, living in a shared reality, we have to dismiss it.
- [62:49]
A
Let me tell you about Scott Macklem, because I love to talk about Scott Macklem. He doesn't get talked about enough, and I feel like we kind of got to know him a little bit. We talked to, like, five people, went on the record, and they were very brave. Everyone was terrified to do it, and everyone thinks they're going to get stalked by these people. But five went on. A lot of people didn't. Scott was like, if you've ever watched, like, a 1980s movie where there's like, the kind of preppy jock guy who's, like, very popular, he's like that guy, but really nice, like, like very, like, chill and kind of a peacemaker in the school. Like, he's not fighting the burnouts. Like, he's just like, chill with everybody. Like, that was what was described. But the thing that really struck me, and, you know, it's very awkward having to go to these people and being like, hey, remember your friend who got murdered 40 years ago? Was he really into drugs? You know, but we were pretty blunt with people. We're like, if he was into drugs, tell us. We want to know. Like, or if he was doing something shady or maybe having a conflict with somebody else, whatever it is, you know, they. They told us he's. He was a health freak. He was really into, like, working out and being fit and eating right. And one story from his ex girlfriend, who they remained friends after the breakup. So I think that says something. That's a pretty mature 1980s teenager. I think they're friends after the breakup. She's smoking a cigarette. He comes over and just sort of gently takes it from her and then drops it on the ground and stamps it. It's like, you shouldn't smoke these. So he's like a goody two shoes, this man is.
- [64:14]
C
I mean, so, yeah, considering all that, I like to ask the question that Julia asked. If not Mr. Kenzo, then who?
- [64:21]
A
But I want to. No, I. I want to. I want to say this first. I'm sorry. I'm going to go on a preamble. I don't think nobody should be doing PR for people who've gotten murdered. Okay? Like, first of all, if you're a drug addict or a drug dealer and you get murdered, you still deserve justice, obviously. So, like, you know, that shouldn't be in. In consideration for people, you know, like, it doesn't matter. But the other thing is, I think, you know, like, people get upset when you report certain things about victims. Right? What we care about is, is it true or not? Or is there evidence for it, or is there a good indication that that might have happened? And. And I think that's the barometer that we prefer rather than like, this makes Scott look good or bad. I don't care about that. Like, I just want to get at, like, is there something else going on here? Is something else in the background that's interesting to explore. We didn't find that at all, like. And I didn't feel like it was people trying to, like, vouch for Scott. Like, I feel like these, these are not people largely who even followed this case or even have strong opinions on anything. Like, they just lost their friend. They just. They were hanging out and then one minute he's dead and they're not like going to trial and following up on it. I think they're very upset when. I mean, anytime you get Kenzo on the mic now it's, Scott was into drugs and his dad was covering stuff, stuff up. And it's like. And they're just like, that's just not, you know, his dad was like a state farm insurance, like, you know, an agent in town and the mayor of a tiny farming town. He's not a kingpin. I think people are upset by that just because they feel like it's total nonsense and it's not really borne out. I think asking questions, though, is fine. Like, I mean, we should all. I mean, speculation is a part of true crime.
- [66:00]
C
If not Mr. Kenzo, who.
- [66:04]
B
I don't know. I will address what we found or didn't find when it came to the drug. I mean, there's been allegations of various things about what could be motive other than Temujin Kenzu having a motive. And one is a drug, that he was into drugs and that there were interviews that indicated that many years later and by private investigators as well as there was a former FBI agent. And when I read those, to me, they just weren't compelling. It didn't seem like that was an angle, but that was definitely something that I wouldn't say it was just completely invented. But you're talking to people 20, 30 years later and they're saying, well, I heard he was into drugs or he was friends with this person who got arrested for drugs, or I was at a party where I saw him using drugs. And so you look at those or you hear, you know, there's rumors in town, well, that was about drugs. But then when you really look, okay, where's the evidence of that? It just didn't seem like it. I didn't. We just couldn't see that as a motive because there lacked evidence. Now, you know, when it comes to his personality traits and his characteristics and his descriptions of his friends, you know, that was not something available because I don't think victimology was thoroughly explored at the time. So when we read the files, there's like, we knew really very little about Scott. So, you know, hearing about his victimology, he becomes low risk. And the risk that we see, I mean, his risk is elevated by his relationship with Crystal, who had a relationship with Temujin Kensou. So that's where you see the elevation of his risk based on what you've said about him. And that's about what, you know, that's how we would evaluate it as profilers. And that just takes us right back to Temujin Kensou should be prioritized as number one suspect until he can be ruled out.
- [68:30]
D
Yeah. And just to follow up on that, I mean, I have no idea. And I think it's one of those things. Whenever you look at these cases, there's always a little bit of. I don't know what to call it. Case bias, evidence bias, conviction bias, whatever you want to call it. We all know what the evidence is against Kinsu. We all know what the. What the argument is that he did it. But as far as an alternative suspect, you don't know until, you know, we on our podcast just covered a case where abusive husband regularly beat his wife. She ends up strangled to death. He's convicted of murder. Turns out there's a serial killer living downstairs who likes to strangle people. So which one did it? Right, is the question. Obviously, until you knew that fact, it seemed like, obviously. I mean, who else would have done it? Right now, I don't think Scott was killed by a serial killer, but I also just don't know what I don't know. So it's hard for me to say. We don't have an investigative podcast. I wish we did. Honestly, I think you guys have probably done more investigation into the victimology, as Julia was saying, than anybody. So I have no idea, is my short answer to your question.
- [69:35]
C
Well, I expect I know the answer to this, but I'll ask it Mr. Kinzu his positive that the murder was the result of a massive conspiracy that was orchestrated by his own defense attorney. Do either of you find that to be credible?
- [69:53]
A
Before you answer, I should note that we're in the conspiracy apparently, too, at this point. So I'm just, you know, whatever you want to say.
- [70:01]
D
You know, I thought you were going to ask what my theory was, and I was going to give you that. And, you know, I don't. I don't think that's the case. I think, like so many of his assertions, you can probably just discount that. That theory.
- [70:15]
A
I don't know. We're pretty sketchy.
- [70:17]
D
Sketchy. That's true. Y' all are up there.
- [70:19]
B
I mean I am aware of that allegation and that very convoluted story. Not from him. And it again, it's just too unbelievable. I don't think that it's that complicated. I didn't see anything that would indicate all those allegations that are made. It's ridiculous. And again, that's the kind of the over the top thing that really hurts him. That's ridiculous. You're just throwing out all these things that are just. Improbable, impossible, ridiculous. And it merely continues to hurt your own case. Which again shows how he has so such a lack of control and self regulation. It can be mind boggling. You know that how bad it is. I do.
- [71:27]
C
Take it away.
- [71:29]
B
Okay, why don't I start? So Phil Joplin, the way I view it, I do not believe Temujin confessed to him in the cell. And I, you know, when it comes to, again, let's just evaluate jailhouse informant testimony. Again, something that just generally we would consider very weak. We would avoid putting a jailhouse informant on the stand without any corroboration whatsoever. So if we had information coming in from a PR like somebody's confessing or saying these things, we would put a wire on somebody and we would corroborate that information. Especially with a person like Phil Joplin who has a history of fraud and cons. So I do believe he talked with Temujin in lockup. Temujin told him details of the case, but in a way where he was saying he was innocent. I think Phil Joplin reframed it and threw in the little details that made it sound very believable and reliable. I do believe that the prosecution used him without any corroboration because I think they thought they had a weak case because otherwise I just don't see why you would put somebody like Joplin on. He can be impeachable. Obviously it worked. It worked. So I mean I'm not saying it didn't, I'm just saying like what I would do as far as trial strategy. And I don't think again, in fact when it comes to corroboration, you have somebody else in the cell that's saying, well when I was in there with them and he wasn't in the full time, he was denying it. And I don't understand how somebody who repeatedly and very loudly continues to tell the same story and claim his innocence would one week before trial confess to a conman that he's in lockup with for two hours. It doesn't make any sense. So I do not believe Phil Joplin.
- [73:38]
D
Yeah, I mean, I feel like he's one of those people that if I thought Temujin was guilty, I probably would believe him more. But since I don't think Temujin's guilty, I don't really believe him. Like, there's nothing about his statement that's gonna push me over the edge. I'm not someone who doesn't believe in jailhouse informants. It happens that people just tell random people stuff. I mean, that does happen, right? It also happens that informants make stuff up. You know, the, the recantation thing. People recant all the time. And half the time, 90% of the time they're lying when they recant. You know, like, I mean, that happens. Like re. The fact that someone recants doesn't necessarily mean, you know, it's like, you know how it is. Once again, if you think Timberson's guilty, well then you absolutely believe his testimony and you don't believe his recantation. You think Temujin's innocent, then that guy is a lying sob but once you recanted, he's an angel from heaven and everything he says is true. And you see that so often with these recantation type situations. But yeah, I mean, there's nothing about his testimony where I'm like, wow, that point makes me think this guy, he might have been a fraudster in the past, but he's telling the truth now. So it just doesn't really move the needle for me.
- [74:55]
C
I like to push back a little bit, Brett, because a lot of people talk about Joplin recanting and he never formally recanted. He gave his testimony under oath. Later the defense got the idea that he'd been induced to make his testimony. So he testified again under oath in 1990, in which he reaffirmed everything he said. And he said, oh, after I testified, somebody who was not an attorney said I probably wouldn't go back to jail. Then he gives a TV interview to a defense investigator and a reporter in which he says, oh, by the way, I was lying. And the defense investigator prepares a detailed affidavit saying, oh, here's everything Joplin said when he told me he was lying. And he goes to the jail to get Joplin to sign it. Joplin refuses to sign it. He refuses to even meet with him. So there was no formal recantation for the court to even consider.
- [76:05]
B
That is true. Partially, it is true. So let's. I do want to back up. So he testifies at trial. He says, you Know, he confessed to me. He said all this, all the details of what he puts in his letter to Cleland. And then he signs an affidavit at some point before the motion for a new trial. I think maybe even that triggered the motion for a new trial where he recants partial or partially his testimony, and he says, I wasn't coerced, or I was coerced and given incentives. I was made promises. That's what he says in the affidavit. So they have the motion for the new trial where he backs off. However, I think he does say that Sergeant Bounds tells him, at some point, this could help you if you were. And this is after they've. They're transfer. Transferring him, and he. They put money in his canteen, which is an incentive. So that's what happens. But he basically backs off what he said in his affidavit. I don't think he was coerced in any way. And then, of course, then later, as you point out, he does interviews, and he meets with the private investigator where he just says, oh, I lied about everything. I think what we can all say is he's a liar. You can't trust anything he says. And I think part of the issue with him not ever backing off completely is because he knows, okay, if I say I was coerced, then that's not on me. But if I say, made it all up, then I have just sat down and I have written a whole letter and orchestrated this whole big lie on my own. And then he opens himself up for potential, and Brett can weigh in on this for perjury. So he's smart enough, and he's really familiar with the system. He's been in and out of the system. He is all about himself. He complains. I think that's one of the reasons he backs off his original testimony is because he's not being treated the way he wants to be treated. And he's like, they're not. You know, he's sick, and they're not treating him, his medical needs. And so he's getting mad, so now he's recanting. And I think, just generally, I. I just can't put any weight on what he said. And. And, yes, I mean, we use jailhouse informants, but not without corroboration. And I don't see any. And I just think he's just. I just think he's a liar, just in general, because everything he's saying, something's a lie there. So we just can't trust him at all. And I don't think there was anything that he told initially in his letter or to the investigators that was exclusive that only the killer could know either. So it's like that would be something else I would look at. Okay, is there something that only the killer knew and nobody else knew? And I don't think he had any exclusive information either. So those, those are my views of Joplin and just generally jailhouse informants and how to deal with them.
- [79:13]
D
Yeah, it's just like I said, it's the weight thing. He might be telling the truth, he might be lying. Honestly, if he had formally recanted, wouldn't make much of a difference to me because they do that too. I would just. I would. I would tell people to just be careful with recantations because so much weight is put on recantations in addition to Joe House foreman informants. And I feel like this is another one of those two sides of the same coin type things. Like, I just don't put that much weight into him. If he had been entirely consistent forever, then maybe I'd put more weight into it, though still, the fact that there's nothing in particular about his story that makes me believe it has more to do with it doesn't have much of an influence on my ultimate conclusion, I guess, is what I'm saying.
- [80:01]
A
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I think it is important to be wary about jailhouse informants as a whole. But I appreciate I, we agree that I don't think there's some conspiracy to put him in by the prosecution. I think, you know, he, he. He's his own thing, I guess, is what I would say.
- [80:17]
B
And I do want to say, I know people like he has said he was coerced. And I think that is the angle. A lot of people who, who believe Temujin is innocent is that he was coerced and he was provided these promises. Now, you know what I will say when as an investigator, I can't make promises, I can't say anything. But what we can do is say your assistance will be considered. And that's pretty much as far as an investigator can go. And then it's the prosecutor that works with the attorneys to make the deals. And so you can't make any of these promises. But somebody like Phil Joplin knows full well that if he cooperates, he's going to get a favor. They don't have to tell him that. And so I don't think they necessarily did tell him that. They might have said, well, it'll be considered. And what are you looking For. Well, we'll consider it. And that could have been enough for him to believe that or enough for him to say he was made promises when he was never specifically made promises. And he realizes now they're not treating me well, and now I'm ticked off about it. But I think there's a wink, wink, nod, nod, and somebody as sophisticated and been in and out of the system, as much as Joplin knows full well he's going to get a favor for his testimony. Whether an exclusive promise was made, I don't think Cleland. He doesn't seem like he would do something like that, coerce him or provide promises like that. So specifically, he. It doesn't seem like that is what happened, in my opinion.
- [82:02]
C
Cleland and another prosecutor had warned statements saying they did not. And. And again, Joplin said, oh. A detective said he probably won't go back to jail, but he said that after the testimony was given.
- [82:14]
A
For me, personally, I just don't put much on informants, like, unless, as you said, that there's some kind of corroborate. Like, if, you know, if you're. If you're wearing a wire, I mean, that's a different story. But if it's. If it's a sit situation where it's, you know, he said, she said, I don't. As someone who thinks Temajin Kenzu is guilty and was rightfully convicted, I. This isn't something that I would have weighed either way, just my own bias.
- [82:39]
B
I think we can all agree He's. He's not truthful. That's probably the. We can all say that with confidence that Phil Joplin doesn't tell the truth.
- [82:48]
A
To me, it's like, even if he was. It's just his status as someone who's just not a trustworthy person.
- [82:53]
C
Like, he definitely lied sometimes.
- [82:55]
A
He. He can't.
- [82:58]
B
He.
- [82:58]
A
All of what he said cannot be true at once because it's like they're. They're contradictory. So it. It's. It's like, what. You know, I just. We don't have. We don't. We don't have the ability to read his mind and see when he was telling the truth and when he wasn't. So it's like, let's just throw it out. That's how I feel about Joplin. I don't feel like it's something that I would say, like, the. The trial should be, like, overturned over this, though. But I do. I do feel like it's just not something I would give any weight to. Yeah, okay. I Guess I don't want to keep you guys, like, well into the deep night, so we'll try to wrap this up. I want to give you all an opportunity. I feel like we've gone through a lot. It's obviously a sprawling, insane case. We're not going to get to everything. Were there things that you all wanted to sort of, like, throw out there, like kind of start a discussion about?
- [83:42]
B
Yes, I do. What I want to say is that, you know, we're all in the true crime world, and it can be full of vitriol, and when people disagree and it becomes very hateful. And as you've experienced, and I think we've all experienced it sometimes when people don't agree and they fight with one another and it's disrespectful and hurtful and harmful. So I really appreciate that we can all have, you know, very. Not completely different opinions because I think we agree on certain things, but have a different opinion as to the guilt and innocence of in this case. But I appreciate that we can all sit and have a nice talk about it and be friendly and be respectful, because I do really respect all of you and I expect your respect, your opinions. And, you know, at the. In the behavioral analysis unit, this is the kind of discussion we would have, because there are some cases where we've had different views. One profiler has a very different view than another profile. And it all comes from perspective, experience. We're all trying to look at the same research and statistics and probabilities as well. But sometimes we just have these disagreements. But yet we still have to move on and work together and work well together. And so I appreciate the opportunity to come on and talk with you both about a case that we have differing opinions, but it can be respectful and also educational for me. So I really appreciate it.
- [85:22]
D
Yeah, well, I hate you guys. No, I mean, I want to piggyback on what Julia's saying because I think it is really important. And number one, I want to thank y' all for doing this case and doing it with all of the depth that you've done it. I think whether Tim is guilty or innocent, there is a lot of lies about this case and misinformation. If we had to do it over again, I would want to do a more in. We did two episodes. I would want to do a more in depth coverage of this case to bring out some of those things, because I think it's important, number one, I think it's important for people who are in the innocence community to start just telling the truth about these folks, because it is absolutely possible that someone who's done a lot of bad things can be in prison for something they didn't do. One might even argue it is more likely that someone who has done really bad things is going to be in prison for something they didn't do. And when you build this mythology around people, I mean, you may ensnare some people, but if someone comes along and actually takes a really hard look at it, a lot of that's going to crumble, and it's only going to make your case look worse. And your objective of getting someone out of prison that you think is innocent is going to be hurt by it. So I think that is a lesson that we all can learn from this case. But, yeah, I want to thank you guys for doing it. I want to thank you guys for having us on. I want to thank you for this, this awesome discussion. You know, there are cases that we've done where podcasters wanted to have us on to discuss things and then show that they're incapable of having these kind of discussions. And so this.
- [86:57]
C
I know who you're talking about.
- [86:58]
D
Yeah, I might have mentioned him earlier. So this is.
- [87:02]
C
This is.
- [87:02]
D
This has been great. And, yeah, I hope everybody who listens to this, whatever your opinion is on Temujin Kinsu, I hope you took away something from it, both from the case and just how this. This is how it should be done. We're all trying to get to truth here, and these cases are not easy. In fact, they're often really hard. And people of good faith can come to different opinions when they look at the same evidence. And my opinion is still open to being changed. I mean, I'm not. I'm not somebody who's so set in stone, I can't. I can't see a difference. My opinion on this case has changed. My final opinion has not. My eyes have been somewhat open to the reality of Temujin Kinsey, both because of what Julia did and especially what you guys have done. So thank you, both of you, for covering this case with such honesty.
- [87:48]
B
And I do want to add, my opinion can always change. And that's the great thing about being a profiler, is that you're always evaluating new evidence. And I am never saying everything is 100%. It's always more than likely or likely. That's the beauty of being a profile, because you have all these caveats. So my opinion could also be changed. I'm not so set in my ways. And also my identity is not tied to Being right or wrong. I've been wrong before, and I'm okay with that. I'm at an age now where, you know, if I haven't been wrong, I haven't lived, so. But I also want to say I appreciate your coverage as well, and doing it with honesty. That's the one thing I think comes out, that you're doing your due diligence, and you're not telling a story that people want to hear, which I think is sometimes what. Some people just want it to fit a certain narrative, and it doesn't.
- [88:56]
A
Well, we really appreciate that, and I
- [88:58]
C
like to echo what you guys said. We have nothing but respect for the both of you. If you agree with someone all the time, that means one of you isn't thinking. You're just doing something reflexively. People sometimes acted like, in code, we were trying to secretly diss one or both of you on our episode.
- [89:20]
A
Those people were right. No, I'm just kidding. Warrant. And we love you guys.
- [89:25]
C
And I just. I've told those people privately and. And I'll say it publicly that we had people in mind. We were criticizing. It was not you guys.
- [89:34]
A
No. And. And. And also, like, it was mostly people just sending us really dumb emails. I mean, like, if I. If we're being completely like, you know, I mean, we're like, we're fighting email cold wars. I. We get heated about this case because we just feel for the people at the heart of it and the people in this kind of community who've been affected. And it's just a bad, sad situation. I think there's a lot of anger and sadness around it, but it's one of those things. We feel reasonable people can disagree, and that's why we love you guys. And it's just like, we can have this normal conversation. It's not a gladiatorial combat where we're trying to force each other to all get the party line from Moscow. It shouldn't be like that. In True Crime, you should be able to disagree about a case fundamentally and strongly and still be friends and still be chill and still, like, we're not gonna all, like, start harassing each other or start World War Three or, you know, like, I mean, it. It shouldn't be like that. And you have to just respect people's different perspectives. And we all have. We're all coming from different kind of backgrounds professionally and kind of ways we see things, and that's just gonna influence how we think about things. And we can still be respectful. And I appreciate the kind of what you guys have been saying about just, you know, like, you know, understanding where Crystal's coming from. And you bring a humanity to that that I think has been lacking in, in some of the discourse around this case, where it's just been kind of like, let's make fun of Crystal and like, let's act like Scott's a rapist. Like, I don't. You guys are not doing that or not everyone who has one opinion is doing stuff like that. And I think that's also important to note because we just, you see. So, I mean, you guys know this. Being in true crime, you see so many things, so many cases just turn into battlefields needlessly. And it's like we could all just be adults and respectfully disagree and be open to changing our minds. You know, I mean, I, I, we, I feel very strongly that the man is guilty and he is where he needs to be, but I'm swayable. Like, I don't, you know, I don't care. Like, if, if I have to be wrong, I'll be like, okay, like, we'll, we'll do an episode wearing our sad I'm wrong party hats and, you know, move on. Like, it's not, it's not about being right. It's just about what you think is right. And, and at the end of the day, if you have more information that corrects it or, or shifts it, you have to go with that or being undecided, you know, like, that's the other thing. In true crime, like, you can kind of, there's a middle part. It's not just one or the other. You can kind of go into a situation. And I've been in this, in some cases where it's like, I just don't know. I don't know what's happening. Yeah, we really appreciate you guys. We respect the hell out of you and we so thank you for coming on and we're so glad we could do this. And, you know, just like, is there anything we didn't ask you in this whole long ordeal that was punctuated by our dog attacking us and all manner of nonsense that you wanted to mention?
- [92:18]
D
I just want to say the fact that you've made me stare at that Indiana pennant this whole time, you know,
- [92:24]
C
like, shot, I think.
- [92:25]
D
Yeah, yeah. You talk about like a secret messages. I mean, that's what I'm getting.
- [92:30]
B
Hey, same here.
- [92:31]
A
Same.
- [92:32]
D
Yeah, exactly.
- [92:33]
B
Same here. I'm a victim too, Brad. But look how I've maintained my composure.
- [92:40]
A
Even with all that.
- [92:41]
B
They put that up on purpose.
- [92:44]
A
Julia is weeping right now. Well, now we're going to have our final thing. We're going to bring Signetti and Mendoza out. I'm sorry, we did not mean to trigger anyone with that. We were just.
- [92:59]
B
No, I noticed it too, but let you have your little win.
- [93:06]
A
We have win win. We're enjoying the championship life.
- [93:14]
B
I don't blame you. I've been waiting. I. You know, I am. As we've talked about before, I'm much older than all of you and I have been an Oregon Duck fan my whole life. Practically went to every game when I was a student. And it's every year just heartbreaking. So you just put that little pennant there.
- [93:32]
A
Just,
- [93:36]
B
you know, stick the knife and twist it, dog.
- [93:38]
A
Nick's middle name is Fernando for a
- [93:41]
C
reason, so I don't think you're much older than me.
- [93:44]
A
You're not
- [93:47]
C
we want to really thank Brett and Julia for taking the time to talk with us. And obviously we encourage you both to listen to their podcasts, which are, of course, prosecutors and the Consult.
- [93:58]
A
I just want to say again, I think it's so important for us all to model respectful disagreement in different cases. We can all still be friends and have different views on a case. That doesn't need to change anything, nor does it for us. So we really appreciate them and we feel like they both come to their cases with a lot of integrity.
- [94:18]
C
Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us@murdersheetmail.com if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.
- [94:39]
A
If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.
- [95:02]
C
Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the web@kevintg.com if you're looking to talk with
- [95:14]
A
other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.